On Monday, January 26th, 2026 at 15:08, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the GUC name, wal_sender_shutdown seems simple and sufficient to me.
> This isn't a blocker, so I'm fine with the current name for now and
> revisiting it later if needed.
Are we considering other approaches to this ? Having the behavior be either "wait indefinitely" or "terminate
immediately"is a bit coarse I think: a timeout for the wait (maybe named wal_sender_stop_timeout ?) would allow for the
sameusage as this patch provides (set it to -1 for indefinite wait, 0 for immediate shutdown, or any positive value to
givea chance to the walsender to catch up before we terminate it forcibly).
The problem we have as of now is when the walreceiver is indeed connected and not reaching wal_sender_timeout as it's
stillprocessing: a distinct timeout would alleviate that.
Regards,
--
Ronan Dunklau
